My wife and I are going to drive to Columbus to see this if it isn't out in Cinci by the 16th. As she says this may be the only movie that she ever finds scary, so it will be worth the trip.
I saw it in San Francisco Saturday night. It really lives up to the hype. The Blair Witch comparisons are fair, but Paranormal Activity does two things that Blair Witch did not accomplish.
1.) it has likable lead actors, I didn't want bad things to happen to them.
Wow...those were *way* better than the movie. At least there was a plot. I saw Rise of Cobra only because I love Chris Eccleston.
I want my $11 back, so I can mail it to Chris with a note: 'Love your acting. Here's a few bucks so you can keep up the *good* work.'
@linworthnewt: Seriously, you should do that. Stories like that radiate through the Hollywood community. It would make his day, and he could share the story with cronies over drinks after a long day on a sucky movie set.
I've been feeling embarrassed for not loving Star Trek quite as much as everyone else does. And I only just realized how WEIRD that is. And backwards, and awesome.
I'm lying to my non-nerd friends about liking Star Trek *more* than I do. This is amazing. The world is upside-down.
People pissing about the lens flare and shaky camera are the new low geek form of life in my opinion. Get over it. You fecks are never happy with anything.
@ElectroJones: Or perhaps they have legitimate concerns regarding A) aesthetic style or B) motion and light sensitivity.
I'm not going to see it in IMAX b/c of the shaky cam and lens flares. I'm prone to migraines and I'd like to enjoy a Star Trek movie experience without blinding headaches and vomiting, thanks very much.
I enjoyed it, neither too dumb like some of the TOS Episodes nor intellect pondering as... another (better) series.
The thing I really liked about it: though they made the caracters "edgier", adding teenageangst and whatnot, they managed to make the Enterprise nicer and yet more realistic.
Especially dug the Engineroom, it looked kinda like a sub´s (but why does a spaceship has a basement?) and made spacetraveling in the ST universe relateable.
Also I see this movie as some kind of Natman Begins, as a retcon torn between being a good film with bad elements or being a stupid film with some extraordinary stuff thrown in.
This movie will by future generations be called:
Star Trek: The Exposition, while the Sequel´s name will be
Star Trek 2: Where Something Other Than Introducing The Crew Happens
While I'm sure this will do well, especially worldwide, Sorry, but while big openings are good, especially when they are at least half your budget, it doesn't mean profitability. The very rough rule of thumb is 3x your budget puts you in the black, which means this has got to pull $450M. HOWEVER, with the advent of home video many films that would have originally be considered failures get a second life. Movies like Hellboy and Lara Croft only got sequels because of their DVD performance. Superman Returns took $400M on DVD alone, matching its worldwide theatrical take, in case you were wondering why Warner Brother was still chasing that dream. And this may be ST's stumbling block because while it got my theatrical money, I won't be buying this.
i was, however not a fan of Sylar... he just didn't feel right as Spock. the rest of teh cast was spot on in every detail. one of my friends is hoping that paramount is seeing this as a wake up call to relaunch the franchise as a TV show with the movie cast.
i tried to explain that its doubtful because Sylar is locked up in heros, but here is to hoping.
as a die hard trecker, it was the best star trek movie ever. hat tip to JJ for a great job...
the only negative is the amount of stupid lens flairs.
Agreed. Let's hope the plot is a little more logical next time, and they actually make the bad guy sympathetic. One should not have to read a prequel comic book to fill in the gaps in the story.
I feel like, with the way it ended, Abrams left himself total license to take this thing back to the small screen if he chose, and remake every TOS episode.
not to get off topic but I think george lucas should have done the same with star wars. That is...the problem with doing these prequels is that you essentially know how it all ends. However, if something is thrown in (in star trek's case, time travel) which allows the story to remain essentially the same, but at the same time allows for a different outcome and even different events, then I think you have the perfect middle ground for telling (prequel) or even retelling (re making) a story.
@jrghoull: Lucas lost sight of what people loved about the series. I think The new Trek benefited from having a self professed non-fan directing it, and lots of hardcore fans around him. The problem with the prequels was there clearly no one around Lucas telling him that "That's not a good idea," or "people aren't going to get Jar Jar."
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
1.) it has likable lead actors, I didn't want bad things to happen to them.
2.) We actually get to see some scary shit.
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
Hearted. I absolutely lost it when I read your comment. Haha.
08/07/09
I want my $11 back, so I can mail it to Chris with a note: 'Love your acting. Here's a few bucks so you can keep up the *good* work.'
08/08/09
08/07/09
08/07/09
08/07/09
08/07/09
08/07/09
08/07/09
05/10/09
I'm lying to my non-nerd friends about liking Star Trek *more* than I do. This is amazing. The world is upside-down.
05/10/09
05/10/09
I'm not going to see it in IMAX b/c of the shaky cam and lens flares. I'm prone to migraines and I'd like to enjoy a Star Trek movie experience without blinding headaches and vomiting, thanks very much.
05/10/09
The thing I really liked about it: though they made the caracters "edgier", adding teenageangst and whatnot, they managed to make the Enterprise nicer and yet more realistic.
Especially dug the Engineroom, it looked kinda like a sub´s (but why does a spaceship has a basement?) and made spacetraveling in the ST universe relateable.
Also I see this movie as some kind of Natman Begins, as a retcon torn between being a good film with bad elements or being a stupid film with some extraordinary stuff thrown in.
This movie will by future generations be called:
Star Trek: The Exposition, while the Sequel´s name will be
Star Trek 2: Where Something Other Than Introducing The Crew Happens
Hopefully!
05/10/09
05/10/09
05/10/09
05/10/09
05/10/09
05/10/09
05/10/09
i was, however not a fan of Sylar... he just didn't feel right as Spock. the rest of teh cast was spot on in every detail. one of my friends is hoping that paramount is seeing this as a wake up call to relaunch the franchise as a TV show with the movie cast.
i tried to explain that its doubtful because Sylar is locked up in heros, but here is to hoping.
as a die hard trecker, it was the best star trek movie ever. hat tip to JJ for a great job...
the only negative is the amount of stupid lens flairs.
05/10/09
05/10/09
Agreed. Let's hope the plot is a little more logical next time, and they actually make the bad guy sympathetic. One should not have to read a prequel comic book to fill in the gaps in the story.
05/10/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/10/09
AND I WOULD WATCH.
05/10/09
not to get off topic but I think george lucas should have done the same with star wars. That is...the problem with doing these prequels is that you essentially know how it all ends. However, if something is thrown in (in star trek's case, time travel) which allows the story to remain essentially the same, but at the same time allows for a different outcome and even different events, then I think you have the perfect middle ground for telling (prequel) or even retelling (re making) a story.
05/10/09
05/10/09